Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Secretary Gates battles VP Cheney's office to prevent war with Iran
Telegraph UK ^ | 10/07/2007 | unknown

Posted on 10/08/2007 11:20:57 AM PDT by rubeng

The man who stands between US and new war

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has taken charge of the forces in the American government opposed to a US military attack on Iran, writes Tim Shipman.

Pentagon and State Department officials say Mr Gates has set himself up as chief rival to Dick Cheney in a bid to thwart the vice?president's desire to bomb the Islamic state.

Those familiar with internal battles in the Bush administration say Mr Gates has eclipsed Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, as the chief opponent of air strikes and is the main reason President George W.Bush has yet to resort to military action.

Pentagon sources say Mr Gates is waging a subtle campaign to undermine the Cheney camp by encouraging the army's senior officers to speak frankly about the overstretch of forces, and the difficulty of fighting another war.

Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East officer, said: "Cheney's people know they can beat Condi. They have been doing it for six years. Bob Gates is a different kettle of fish. He doesn't owe the President anything. He is urging his officers to be completely honest, knowing what that means."

Officials say Mr Gates's strategy bore fruit when Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, charged with devising war plans for Iran, said last month that the "constant drumbeat of war" was not helpful.

He was followed by General George Casey, the army's new chief of staff, who requested an audience with the House of Representatives armed services committee to warn that his branch of the military had been stretched so thin by the Iraq war that it was not prepared for yet another conflict.

Gen Casey told Congress the army was "out of balance" and added: "The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight, and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

Mr Gates has forged an alliance with Mike McConnell, the national director of intelligence, and Michael Hayden, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, to ensure that Mr Cheney's office is not the dominant conduit of information and planning on Iran to Mr Bush.

Insiders say Mr Gates has ensured that Mr Bush has seen more extensive studies of the probable negative effects of an attack on Iran than he was privy to before the war in Iraq.

One CIA insider said: "Bush understands that any increase in real military hostilities in Iran right now could have a negative effect. Bob Gates is the only one opposed to it. He's the single person in the US government who has any standing with the White House fighting it."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cheney; iran; iraniannukes; iraq; iraqwar; middleeast
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: Perdogg
Cheney-Bolton 2008.

But...but..where do they stand on the abortion issue?

41 posted on 10/08/2007 12:55:31 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
Flame away. I’m a Vietnam vet. I know what it looks like when the government loses the will to fight.

You got that right. I, along with you and thousands of us, saw what happens when a government turns its back on someone they support, pull financial support out, pull the troops out. Total loss. No hope to win. Overrun by communist forces. Only here, Iraq will be over run by Islamic terrorists and Iran. Iraq will become just another state within greater Terrorist Iran. Stupid Americans are too worried about ordering their pizza to watch stupid Caveman shows and THE BIG GAME, to worry about their futures. Too worried about real world. Want those free hand outs, free medical care. Like Rush was reporting today, the kid that the Dims used to respond to Bush's Saturday radio address. The kid's family lives in a $400k house, bought $160k in properties, father self employed, mother had no insurance at home, yet when kids were injured in auto accident, family had no private insurance to cover them. Family chose buying big house and property over medical coverage. Yet, Dims think this family who appears to be well off, are perfect example of "the poor children" without medical coverage. The socialization of Amerika has begun. With the election of Hillary, and at this point, seeing how America is acting, like a spoiled 5 year old, Hillary will win the election. The RINOs, republican party, religious right, conservatives, libertarians, etc., are so splintered, that our voting will be all over the place and she will win. The Marxists hold on to Congress, and America is done. Hell, I might move to Canada. It would not be as bad as it is going to become here. But, I will stay. I will fight. I will stay armed. Hillary wants my gun, the bitch can personally come and ask for it. I will gladly give it to her. From my cold dead hand.

42 posted on 10/08/2007 1:00:22 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (Marxist Dimocrats & Harry Reid are the true PHONY supporters of the Military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: River_Wrangler
How many troops does it take to bomb them up into the stone age? ;0)
But sooner or later you have to put boots on the ground. If we were to bomb them as you say, and do nothing else, we will create another Iraq full of terrorists with America in their sights. Boots on the ground.
43 posted on 10/08/2007 1:31:37 PM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Generals have cried for more troops and supplies in every war this nation ever won.

It's their primary job.

Ask the O-3 through O-6 what HE thinks. Ask the Seargent Majors and the Staff Seargents.

Hell, who said the Army was required in any conflict with Iran to begin with?

44 posted on 10/08/2007 4:38:28 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
"So, why should we not see what history tells us. Baker-Scowcroft-Gates seek to avoid the hard choices of their time, and leave conditions we pay for dearly later on."

It appears there is a great divide in pocketbook land. Those that have a vision for the future vs the greedy old farts.

I wonder who is stopping the retirement study group from giving away a chunk of Israel? Hmmmmm, Somebody is trying to play a quick game of poker when the game is chess.

45 posted on 10/08/2007 11:22:34 PM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Generals have cried for more troops and supplies in every war this nation ever won.
It’s their primary job.

Ask the O-3 through O-6 what HE thinks. Ask the Seargent Majors and the Staff Seargents.

Yep.


46 posted on 10/09/2007 5:50:29 AM PDT by Badeye (Free Willie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: I Like Lincoln; ought-six

>>More importantly, we don’t have the troops.

If it’s just airstrikes on nuclear facilities, and not a land invasion, we have plenty of troops. In the grand scheme of things, the Air Force and Navy aren’t doing much right now.

The incessant BDS-driven attacks on Bush by the Left have created a domestic political environment that prevents taking decisive action on Iran.


47 posted on 10/09/2007 5:54:28 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rubeng

Scotty always told Kirk that the engines couldn’t handle the strain.


48 posted on 10/09/2007 5:55:33 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Must respectfully disagree. Sure seems like he gets the nature of behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

Whether his claims are *true* or not, I cannot say. But he lays out a plausible case that the Vice President and Secretary of Defense are each urging the President to come down on opposite sides of the issue.


49 posted on 10/09/2007 6:22:16 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: highball

I can agree with that. Maybe it’s a “tone of voice” sort of thing....


50 posted on 10/09/2007 9:07:10 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Don’t trust anyone who can’t take a joke. [Congressman BillyBob])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller
"It appears there is a great divide in pocketbook land. Those that have a vision for the future vs the greedy old farts."

I do not think the cause is "greed", nor do I think the opposite view is entirely a "vision for the future". I think the so-called "realists", in American Middle East policy circles, are actually not realists at all. They do not really and have never really understood far, far too many things about the Middle East.

Their view of "history" and from it their "world view" of the Middle East does not come from living personal experience of a Middle East person. It (their view) has been constructed primarily through their official relationships, with a lot of help from their Middle East counterparts in the process; counterparts whose goals are entirely centered on their self-appointed leaders retaining power.

Mr. Baker exemplified this disconnect from reality and "realism" in the "Iraq Study Group" report, which he led in the preparation of, where he asserted that we needed a resolution of the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to help achieve peace in Iraq. The Iraqi people who voted for a government, the Iraqi citizens who have joined that government's security program - including those who died in its service, the Shia and Sunni tribal leaders who reject Mr. Baker's belief (it was one of the propaganda positions of Al Queda and the Sunni militias) know that Mr. baker does not know what he is talking about.

It would be easy, and not entirely wrong, to criticize Baker for presenting that view simply on the basis of his clear conflict of interest during the entire process of the Iraq study group, wherein he remained as a paid "consultant" to the Saudi government at the time. And to include that his greed in retaining that contract leads him to present a Saudi line on many Middle East issues.

My view of Baker is that one problem, that reflects the error in Baker's world view of the Middle East is manifest in that he did not see his situation (during the Iraq study group process) as a conflict of interest and the second one is not that he is doing the Saudis bidding but he simply, and with great error, agrees with them and often ignores or fails to believe that their self-interest dominates over mere presentation of an "informed" Middle East view.

A good example of the grave error in Baker's mis-education and erroneous view of the Middle East is presented by the deal he made with Syria in the run-up to the first Gulf War. He wants one to believe it was needed for the "coalition", as if without Syria publicly agreeing to NOT oppose kicking Saddam out of Kuwait (its sole contribution to the "coalition"), (1)there would not have been the "coalition", (2)the "coalition" would have been more dammed in the Arab and Muslim world than it was, during and more particularly after the Gulf War, even with the Saudis and others behind it, or (3)Syria was capable of impeding the essential mission of the "coalition" - none of which was true. Yet, the Syria dictator was rewarded with a U.S. policy position that was going to not oppose his moves into Lebanon - a move that the Middle East is still reeling from the ramifications of. Mr. Baker was not then nor is he now a "realist" when it comes to the Middle East. He could have and should have promised the dictator in Syria nothing in 1991 and accepted what diplomatic consequences, and problems it would have entailed then, and since. Those problems were minor compared to the results; which his uneducated "realism" has given us, with regard to Syria vis-a-vis Lebanon.

51 posted on 10/09/2007 12:26:21 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cinives

“You’re leaving Cheney out of that triad. Cheney also has a long working history with those 3, particularly with Gates.”

I left him out because he is factually not with them now. Apparently while Cheney had working relationships with the three of them in the past, it is not clear, in that history , that he was on the same page with them, then, on their thinking and policy points of view and it is very clear he has never been on the same page as them on Bush’s policies vis-a-vis Iraq. Maybe, like Bush, he realized, through the 9/11 experience, that the “realists” (Middle East peace and American “peace” with the people of the Middle East, can be achieved by the “stability” of its dictators) had been wrong all along.


52 posted on 10/09/2007 12:36:01 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

And your point is?


53 posted on 10/09/2007 12:37:53 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rubeng
Sloppily written article!
54 posted on 10/09/2007 12:39:32 PM PDT by verity (Muhammed and Harry Reid are Dirt Bags)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

ITs simple, I would tell Iran that if you develop nuclear weapons or explode a bomb, you will be threatened with nuclear weapons. ITs your choice. We will not wait for you to develop an arsenal.


55 posted on 10/09/2007 12:43:54 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rubeng
Source: Telegraph UK | 10/07/2007 | unknown

Now there’s a reputable source.

Go Darth Cheney!

56 posted on 10/09/2007 12:45:06 PM PDT by McGruff (If I can't have Cheney I guess Fred will have to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“Reidel has followed al-Qaida since American intelligence first became aware of the group in the mid-1990s.”

Yes, American intelligence was tardy, and not for the first time; even though American intelligence had many “allies” who not only knew about the philosophical and political origins and funding for “Al Queda” but were “allies” who had nurtured and funded those who provided those origins, since long before the 1990s.

American “intelligence” went through a wholesale internal destruction of our own humit (person to person human intelligence on the ground in the trenches) beginning in the 1970s. By the time of Gulf War one the U.S. had almost no humit of our own on most of the Middle East and zero in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Our “intelligence” was limited to our electronic intelligence and what Middle East and European intelligence agencies were willing to share with us from their actual humit. Mr. Reidel rose through the ranks during this period and for all I know he might even epitomize the problems we currently suffer from because of that period.


57 posted on 10/09/2007 12:53:13 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: highball

“Sure seems like he gets the nature of behind-the-scenes maneuvering.”

That “nature” is known by any student who watches it, it is not in question. The facts are. Simply having an understanding of a context (and having some history to back up that understanding) does not automatically provide credit for the facts you seek to put in that context.

Given the period when Mr. Reidel rose through the ranks in U.S. intelligence circles - when the wholesale destruction of our own human intelligence abilities took place - I am not certain I can even grant him great authority for his experience. His generation of intelligence managers failed (not entirely their fault) on 9/11; but that was only the demonstration of their failure, not the beginnings of it.


58 posted on 10/09/2007 1:37:28 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
That “nature” is known by any student who watches it, it is not in question. The facts are.

Thank you, that was precisely my point.

59 posted on 10/09/2007 1:53:04 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson